SIX is Sexy! (Unboxed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

RAMs...AM3 score is better than AM2+ in most aplliacations, example here:

---

HMmm I dont see a big difference. Only 300 points in the X-CPU bench. Thus it is the multicore bench, but we are talking here about the single-thread performance.

Furthermore, the used RAMs for the X6 system are quite good:

Quote:

---

System specs:
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
MB: MSI-790FX-GD70 Bios v1.10b8
RAM: Corsair CMD8GX3M4A 1600 C8 at 1333-9-9-9-24 (all auto)
GPU: 4770 CF stock clocks
PSU: Corsair HX850

---

@informal:
Yes, saw that problem with the NB clocks, but as stated above, the andandtech results are still better, and these are not oc'ed.

@jcmarfilph:
Hmm ok C&Q ... could be a problem, indeed.

@informal (again ;-)
Was C&Q enabled at your run @3.2 GHz ? If yes could you try once with disabled C&Q ?

thx

Opteron146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcmarfilph

CnQ was enabled too so that could affect the result.

And correct me if i am wrong, Turbo Core is just spiking on when needed so a static 3.3Ghz > dynamic 2.8Ghz(Turbo Core ON and CnQ ON)

:)

---

or the fact hes taking screenshots while its running. and yes CnQ its a bit odd to work with, ill test that when i get home, but i know for a fact in gaming, if i have my windows power profile say minimum 5% max 100%, some games only make it go up to 50-60% if i have it on balanced or power saver, only high performance lets it hit 100% all the time. and yes, there is a fps difference. WoW is so badly coded that i only used 25-30% of my cpu power, but is 100% relevant to cpu speed, so if 25% of 3ghz, does not mean its 50% at 1.5ghz, its still 25%, :down:, so i only use high performance with CnQ, and mod the profile to let it reach 5% for minimum

No CnQ in my case :). I disabled it and i use K10stat only ;). But the profile was set to 3.2Ghz for both perf. profiles so you can say my run was @ 3.2Ghz. There is still 4% IPC difference between my run and the X3 you linked(could be 2.5Ghz NB effect).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opteron146

Furthermore, the used RAMs for the X6 system are quite good:

Opteron146

---

What do you mean 1333@CL9 is quite good? Good 1333 RAM should be running at CL6.

here you can see bus speed 312mhz : http://www.xfastest.com/viewthread.php?tid=41074

ridney
When you run the x264 bench you'll do it also at stock speeds right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richierich

What do you mean 1333@CL9 is quite good? Good 1333 RAM should be running at CL6.

---

It's better than DDR2 ;-)
I dont expect great gains of CL6 memory. The prefetcher should do the main work for cinebench. Low latency RAM is mainly useful for games, only, because their acces patterns are not as regular.

@informal:
Thanks ... hmm maybe it could be the +4MB L3 cache ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opteron146

It's better than DDR2 ;-)
I dont expect great gains of CL6 memory. The prefetcher should do the main work for cinebench. Low latency RAM is mainly useful for games, only, because their acces patterns are not as regular.

@informal:
Thanks ... hmm maybe it could be the +4MB L3 cache ?

---

Yep,it could be the cache or something related to minor core changes AMD did with Deneb(latency of some instructions is decreased,L1 and L2 caches have slightly lower latencies overall).

Nice results!

And lovely pics. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

ridney: nice result in Cinebench, can u go a bit higher, exmaple with 3700-3800 MHz?

---

i can go much higher than that :up: i think at 1.375v default, i can go as high as 3.7 cinebench stable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radaja

ridney,nice results so far.i cant wait to get one.six cores is going to be fun and affordable:up:

thanks for showing me how to do this.this is a great feature that i had no clue about

---

thanks radaja! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

ridney
When you run the x264 bench you'll do it also at stock speeds right?

---

yep, stock and to whatever maximum oc stable i can get :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -n7-

Nice results!

And lovely pics. :D

---

thanks n7 :) six is definitely sexy!

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/5...1m01270bus.png

WOW nice 6 cores at 4.5Ghz:up: that is just awesome

That OC scream cinebench and x264 xDDD

don't be too excited gentlemen, that's on turbo :D i can't find a way to turn it off, damn!

Turbo can only be disabled on 800 mobos?

Still, at least your system doesn't crash right away, clocking that high in turbo mode.

i think these early bios doesn't have an option to disable it yet :shakes:

if turbo picks up 3 cores then i crap out

Enlighten me on this turbo thing please.

You overclocked it to what, 4.1GHz? And than turbo kicks in and raises one core to 4.5GHz?

So that makes 1M ran at 4.5GHz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

i think these early bios doesn't have an option to disable it yet :shakes:

if turbo picks up 3 cores then i crap out

---

EDIT: Mistaken math.

Awesome results!

This is providing some incentive for going with an 1090T as the multiplier control will allow the same hefty OCs without the Turbo getting out of control due to FSB scaling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Enlighten me on this turbo thing please.

You overclocked it to what, 4.1GHz? And than turbo kicks in and raises one core to 4.5GHz?

So that makes 1M ran at 4.5GHz?

---

Turbo adds 2.5 to the multiplier, at stock that's 500, at 275 FSB it's 687.5.

zeus, on that 1m pi run i set affinity to core#1 so that it wouldn't be bouncing off from core to core and kicking all three cores to turbo mode. normal clocks at 275HTT x14 multi is 3.85GHz but when turbo kicks in it would be 4.538GHz on 1 to 3 cores. If all 3 cores are on turbo, 1.475vcore is not enough and craps out :shrug:

sorry to disappoint you guys but i don't think i can go any higher than this unless i can find a way to disable this turbo, if i up HTT to 280 i would be getting 4.62GHz on turbo and i don't have much volts for that clock

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/310/cb001.png

nice, 22k on CB10, thats a number worth oggling over.

Thanks for the explanation Ridney and AMD-C.

That cinebench is awesome, almost 22K!

So, allow me to do a little math: your're runnning 14x270= 3780 and once turbo kicks in 3 cores go to 2.5x270=675+3780=4455MHz?

Basically you ran that bench with 3 cores at 3780 and 3 cores randomly switching to 4455MHz, right?

(A part from the cpu) these are what i call great pics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Thanks for the explanation Ridney and AMD-C.

That cinebench is awesome, almost 22K!

So, allow me to do a little math: your're runnning 14x270= 3780 and once turbo kicks in 3 cores go to 2.5x270=675+3780=4455MHz?

Basically you ran that bench with 3 cores at 3780 and 3 cores randomly switching to 4455MHz, right?

---

nope, its 6 cores at 3870, it ONLY uses turbo if 1-3 cores are loaded, 4-6 means no turbo, which is why if exactly 4 cores are used, these chips can seem slower than older PIIs

Ah, ok now it's clear, tnx.

So 22K at just 3870? Can anyone say 24K on water? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Ah, ok now it's clear, tnx.

So 22K at just 3870? Can anyone say 24K on water? :)

---

im actually a little worried that 3870mhz x6 is a little low, think u can give us 4ghz on all cores with your setup? or is that the max cinebench run u got?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeus

Thanks for the explanation Ridney and AMD-C.

That cinebench is awesome, almost 22K!

So, allow me to do a little math: your're runnning 14x270= 3780 and once turbo kicks in 3 cores go to 2.5x270=675+3780=4455MHz?

Basically you ran that bench with 3 cores at 3780 and 3 cores randomly switching to 4455MHz, right?

---

If you are referring to C10 test ,no,he ran it @ 3.7Ghz since all cores were used.IF on the other hand you meant Spi,then 3 active cores(all being used 33% each) were OCed to the Turboed clock and the SPi thread ran on them(effectively the same as having SPi bound to one core that worked @ Turboed clock).

manicdan i think most of the programs/games that work for quadcore will work for even more cores. and also i think we will be able to clock these as high as c3 quads so if there is something that is only coded to work w/ 4 cores no more, then they should still have same if not better clocks than deneb. if people that move from deneb to x6 use the same vcore on the new cpu, i dont think there will be many instances that the quad will beat the x6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

manicdan i think most of the programs/games that work for quadcore will work for even more cores. and also i think we will be able to clock these as high as c3 quads so if there is something that is only coded to work w/ 4 cores no more, then they should still have same if not better clocks than deneb. if people that move from deneb to x6 use the same vcore on the new cpu, i dont think there will be many instances that the quad will beat the x6

---

theres a review shown in the news section showing the 1055T loosing to the x4 965 in a few games, due to using all 4 cores, but nothing beyond that. programs should have no problems scaling past 4 most of the time, but games i think were built for 2 or 4 or other set numbers, instead of being dynamic, but hopefully if they got to 4, it should be very easy for a patch to get to 6 or so

im still freaking annoyed at WoW using just 2 cores. 3.4ghz with game setting at minimum, should not result in 30fps, at max its like 25fps. so i have no clue how they could have such crappy programming.

HA! you would be suprised to what i have just found! :D

i ran 3dmark06 with an extended display to see how turbo was picking up

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8260/thuban051.jpg



AND GUESS WHAT?

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3668/thuban050.jpg

Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!! :shocked: :clap:


here's the result ;)

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3694/3d06003a.png

hmm interesting to say the least! did you notice that they were switching around very frequently & staying w/ 4 cores? sometimes when i change clockspeed cpuz takes a bit to update it so i was wondering if they just hadnt quite updated enough, but hoping it really uses 4 cores that would be amazing! i will def keep turbo on if thats the case :D im guessing it it runs x6 for cpu tests & uses turbo for 3d tests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

HA! you would be suprised to what i have just found! :D

i ran 3dmark06 with an extended display to see how turbo was picking up


AND GUESS WHAT?


Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!! :shocked: :clap:


here's the result ;)

---

That is awsome stuff right there. Dang USA and there slow to get new stuff, crap... LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

hmm interesting to say the least! did you notice that they were switching around very frequently & staying w/ 4 cores? sometimes when i change clockspeed cpuz takes a bit to update it so i was wondering if they just hadnt quite updated enough, but hoping it really uses 4 cores that would be amazing! i will def keep turbo on if thats the case :D im guessing it it runs x6 for cpu tests & uses turbo for 3d tests?

---

Good point, When is the new AOD coming? This has live data and will be better for testing this thoery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charged3800z24

That is awsome stuff right there. Dang USA and there slow to get new stuff, crap... LOL

---

yes its been torture! ive been living vicariously through our friends around the world this week! cant stay off XS but thats nothing new :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

yes its been torture! ive been living vicariously through our friends around the world this week! cant stay off XS but thats nothing new :rofl:

---

Ah, so it's not just me :rofl::p:

I can't wait to get one. My wife will probably make a perminent place on the couch for me when I do get one.

they were switching but i am sure they were running on four cores for a reasonable amount of time, a couple of seconds maybe 4 or 5. It happens quite a lot during GT1 and GT2 tests and i had ran the bench 3 times and is showing similar behavior so i can say it really ran on four cores :) and two extra cores are always on idle.

from what i can see during the cpu test, turbo didn't kick-in frequently and a lot of cores where idle. it wasn't showing the same behavior with those graphics tests

OMG 4 cores on Turbo... Very nice ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

they were switching but i am sure they were running on four cores for a reasonable amount of time, a couple of seconds maybe 4 or 5. It happens quite a lot during GT1 and GT2 tests and i had ran the bench 3 times and is showing similar behavior so i can say it really ran on four cores :) and two extra cores are always on idle.

from what i can see during the cpu test, turbo didn't kick-in frequently and a lot of cores where idle. it wasn't showing the same behavior with those graphics tests

---

thats good to hear :)

about the cpu tests, it was showing some cores as idle? i think the score is reflective of x6@ 3780mhz :shrug:

Great! Wondering why the cpu score is still lowish though. Mad222 got 8K cpu score at 4.3GHz, then again, he had all 6 cores running at that speed plus he was running Windows XP.

Thanks for showing your results Ridney! Keep pushing. :up:

4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 1080MHz + 1080MHz / 6 cores gives an average speed of 3330MHz, could you rerun at that speed with Turbo off? I'm interested in scaling with cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oj101

4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 1080MHz + 1080MHz / 6 cores gives an average speed of 3330MHz, could you rerun at that speed with Turbo off? I'm interested in scaling with cores.

---

its switching cores constantly, it would be better shown if an app could track what the cpu speed is multiple times per second for every core. the app should only be using 2 cores (i think the games in 3Dmark06 are duel optimized and the cpu tests are much higher), so 2 of them should be at 4.4ghz, and the other 4 should actually be idle. but due to how and when cpuz reads them, i think its just an optical illusion.

and hes having trouble turning off turbo, which makes it a real pain to know how well its working, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

theres a review shown in the news section showing the 1055T loosing to the x4 965 in a few games, due to using all 4 cores, but nothing beyond that. programs should have no problems scaling past 4 most of the time, but games i think were built for 2 or 4 or other set numbers, instead of being dynamic, but hopefully if they got to 4, it should be very easy for a patch to get to 6 or so

im still freaking annoyed at WoW using just 2 cores. 3.4ghz with game setting at minimum, should not result in 30fps, at max its like 25fps. so i have no clue how they could have such crappy programming.

---

Well, WOW is 5+ years in release at this point. I imagine that when it was primarily being coded, duals weren't even common yet.

Rendering is ideal for parallelizing, games not so much.

For example, BioWare figured out to do a great job of coding Dragon Age to benefit from 4 cores as it scales by 60%+, but it doesn't gain much of anything with the jump to 6.

I'd imagine there's a lot more to threading a game for multiple cores than just flipping a switch to spawn more workers.

The developers are going to have to figure it out though. It's clear that we're looking at far more growth in cores than Mhz for the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMD-C

Well, WOW is 5+ years in release at this point. I imagine that when it was primarily being coded, duals weren't even common yet.

Rendering is ideal for parallelizing, games not so much.

---

well the issue is that something has changed or been added so the cpu needs to be stronger, but cant be much stronger. when wow was new, my gpu was a 9800, and my cpu was a single core, and i got 60fps back then even with 40man groups. when they first introduced shadows, my cpu was killed, so i kept it off, then they modified it and now its 10x better and no where near as taxing. so i know, its not a graphics setting since when minimized it still exists. so something weird thats causing low fps that your stuck with, and it seems to be around data movements, so when your around alot of people doing nothing, or a few people doing alot. same number of polys, but animations, or spell effects, or combat logs, and other crap seem to be related to this.

for a game that brings in 150 million dollars a month, hopefully they have a team working on spitting off more of the workload to new threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

but due to how and when cpuz reads them, i think its just an optical illusion.

---

i would have seen the same when i was benching with cinebench single thread run, but i didn't ;) with 3dmark06 you can blink 10 times and turbo is still running on those same four sexy cores :up:

okay i think it's time to ZZZZzzzzzzz

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5595/pi32m.png

ridney: OMG, this is awesome and crazy! Air? What ambient temps? Can u ran CInebench at 4 GHz (without turbo)? Superpi, omg, omg, omg :D I want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

ridney: OMG, this is awesome and crazy! Air? What ambient temps? Can u ran CInebench at 4 GHz (without turbo)? Superpi, omg, omg, omg :D I want it.

---

whau flank3r! :) i'm running on water (see my sig), the problem with my mobo is that it can't disable turbo (yet) so i'm stuck

anyways, say hello to my new "on-the-fly" best friend :D

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8316/thuban053.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

well the issue is that something has changed or been added so the cpu needs to be stronger, but cant be much stronger.

---

Interesting.

When I played WOW (early '05), the game ran great on just about anything.

After taking a look around the web it sounds like the game has become unplayable for a lot of people.

I'm thinking there must be something positively rotten with the game's infrastructure. It's hard to imagine that even the worst client code would cause the game performance to decrease so drastically in spite of 2 CPU generations passing by underneath it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMD-C

Interesting.

When I played WOW (early '05), the game ran great on just about anything.

After taking a look around the web it sounds like the game has become unplayable for a lot of people.

I'm thinking there must be something positively rotten with the game's infrastructure. It's hard to imagine that even the worst client code would cause the game performance to decrease so drastically in spite of 2 CPU generations passing by underneath it.

---

see the issue is WoW is backed by intel, and intel promised us 10ghz with netburst, and i rest my case, lol.

seriously though, i have no clue, and its no fun

@ridney, with cinebench u only have 1 thread, so maybe you see 1-2 cores in turbo mode, with 3dmark06 its built for 2 threads, so maybe u see 2-4 cores in turbo. the only true way to tell is to fix that damn un-turbo button, lol

ridney: its beter for OC than C3 Denebs, right? Hope, with refresh BIOS u will can turbo disabled for testing. But u are lucky man :). What about wprime benchmarks?

I'm very interesed on looking at the isolated power consumption of the Processor, X-Bit Labs style. Is actually impressive than these Processors can scale over the average attainable Frequencies of the Deneb RB-C3 when you are actually pushing 6 Cores instead of 4. While I didn't doubt that they could attain the same Frequencies, the real issue would be if the Motherboards VRM would also be capable of as you are indeed consuming more power for having more Cores, at the same Frequencies.
Besides, how that Turbo thing scales? There is a practical limit on how much you can raise the Frequency after a given point. If Turbo raises a fixed 2.5x Multiplier, there should be a bunch of overclocks that borderlines the maximum Frequencies that those Rev. E Cores are capable of without Voltage increase that would make them to become unstable, freeze or crash as soon as the Processor enables Turbo. I mean, if the transistors can't be consistently pushed above, for example, 4 GHz, and Turbo attempts to run a Core at 4.25 GHz just because the other 5 Cores are in Idle, you are going to have issues anyways because you aren't limited by power consumption but by the a physical limit of the transistors themselves.

Wow ridney, awesome findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

whau flank3r! :) i'm running on water (see my sig), the problem with my mobo is that it can't disable turbo (yet) so i'm stuck

---

what bios are u running on ur gd70? the newest is 1.B1 or 1.11B1
maybe there is a setting for disabling turbo in the newest beta.

edit: ok... just saw in the first post that ur on 1.10B8
i guess the only thing they changed in 1.11b1 is c´n´q working with adjusted cpu multiplier on 955 and 965 cpus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!! :shocked: :clap:

---

According to AMD only 3 cores can be in turbo mode at a time, and since turbo is controlled by the CPU itself I doubt 4 cores are getting boosted, I'd say CPU-Z is a bad tool to use since it doesn't update often enough to see whats actually going on.

For example on a dual core Phenom II @ 3.4GHz (CnQ enabled) I ran 2 instances of CPU-Z (one for each core) and at the same time ran a program set to take 10 samples per second, the yellow line is P-state (in percentage) and the blue line is the MHz usage, watching core 0 CPU-Z only detected the CPU speed changing two times when it changed at least 10 times.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9981/cpumhz.png

Thanks for sharing your X6 results! :up:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zir_blazer

Besides, how that Turbo thing scales?

---

turbo is scaling quite nicely between one to three cores fast, i'm pretty impressed with the hardware based turbo so far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

ridney: its beter for OC than C3 Denebs, right? Hope, with refresh BIOS u will can turbo disabled for testing. But u are lucky man :). What about wprime benchmarks?

---

i didn't had a c3 but a c2, so far i can say that it's nothing like it, it's a lot better in my opinion so i guess it is better than c3 (i'm on normal water cooling not chilled water)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadDias

what bios are u running on ur gd70? the newest is 1.B1 or 1.11B1

---

since friday i have been runing the latest 1.11b1 bios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReKcOlNu

According to AMD only 3 cores can be in turbo mode at a time, and since turbo is controlled by the CPU itself I doubt 4 cores are getting boosted, I'd say CPU-Z is a bad tool to use since it doesn't update often enough to see whats actually going on.

---

maybe someone can post a phenom II quad at 4.4ghz cpu score of 3dmark06 so we can compare the score i got and formulate an opinion based from those results



oh and i have some interesting bit found just this morning. turned on pc and checked cpu-z then saw i was only getting x11 multi on a 270 bus, so i was kinda shocked and worried that something bad might have happened (crashed system before going to bed), this is the first time i saw an x11 multi so i ran pi to check it again and took a screenie. it really is getting x11 on core#4

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1146/cnq.png

maybe a buggy bios? idk

weird.

rideny: i can post only D06 at 4.2 GHz :(, its max running for my aircooling...

flank3r, i'm sure 4.2 on your mobo is pretty easy. temps are not so much of a problem, thubans are really cool!

okay, i tried pov-ray render test but i'm not sure if i'm doing this correctly

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/3759/povray02.png

EDIT: updated with x264 bench result

Code:

---

x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS
 
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 87.62 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.37 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.45 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.20 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 34.95 fps, 3971.69 kb/s
 
 
System Details
--------------
        Name                        AMD K10
        Codename               
        Specification                AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor
        Specification                PC3-12800
        Specification                PC3-12800
        Core Stepping               
        Stock frequency                3300 MHz
        Core Speed                3710.2 MHz
        FID range                5.0x - 16.5x
 
Northbridge                        AMD 790FX rev. 00
Southbridge                        ATI SB750 rev. 00
 
CAS# latency (CL)                7.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD)        7
RAS# Precharge (tRP)                7
Cycle Time (tRAS)                24
Command Rate (CR)                1T
        Command Rate                2T
        Command Rate                2T
Memory Frequency                706.7 MHz (3:8)
Memory Type                        DDR3
Memory Size                        4096 MBytes
Channels                        Dual, (Unganged)
 
Windows Version                        Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Ultimate Edition  (Build 7600)
 
Number of processors                1
Number of threads                6
        Number of threads        6 (max 6)
        L2 cache                6 x 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
        Instructions sets        MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64
        Package                Socket AM2+ (940)
        Package Type                0x1
 
        Temperature 0        33°C (91°F) [0x21] (TMPIN0)
        Temperature 1        54°C (129°F) [0x36] (TMPIN1)
        Temperature 2        46°C (114°F) [0x2E] (TMPIN2)
        Temperature 0        31°C (86°F) [0xF4] (Core #0)
        Temperature 1        31°C (87°F) [0xF5] (Core #1)
        Temperature 2        31°C (87°F) [0xF6] (Core #2)
        Temperature 3        31°C (88°F) [0xF9] (Core #3)
        Temperature 4        31°C (88°F) [0xF9] (Core #4)
        Temperature 5        31°C (88°F) [0xFA] (Core #5)

---

w7 64bit 4 cores @ 4335mhz, nb @ 2805mhz, ram a lil under 1360mhz c8 got me cpu score 6038

I would've loved to see a cinebench r10 and 11.5 results at 4Ghz if thats possible, or maybe its already been done?
looks like its a fun cpu this far!

this wwas my run a few days ago (aircooled, not max CPU, only maybe max with this voltage) CPU= 6049
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/y...CGPU18508b.jpg

nice score flank3r! so cpu score = 6409 at 4.1ghz and mine's 6808 at 4.45ghz (4 cores) is plausible :up: i don't think it would have gotten that high if it was running turbo on 3 cores though

okay, here's a cinebench 11.5 run. booted at 3.5ghz, oc dialed 4 clicks up at 5mhz HTT/click to 3.7 before i started the run. during the start when turbo went off and loaded all six cores at 3.7, i oc dialed again 3 clicks to get up to 3.99 and then before the end i dialed back again 3 clicks down (turbo kicks in at the end of the run and would have crashed, 4.7ghz turbo :D)

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/7766/cb115002a.jpg

nice results ridney, and gotta love your way of adjusting the htt before turbo kicks in at the end, hahaha.

What volts for that 3.99GHz run Ridney?
I don't believe CPU-Z reading :p:

I must have .... now :scope:

rideny: thank u, i have some better CPU score...Its older result
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/y...B-17426ba6.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReKcOlNu

According to AMD only 3 cores can be in turbo mode at a time, and since turbo is controlled by the CPU itself I doubt 4 cores are getting boosted, I'd say CPU-Z is a bad tool to use since it doesn't update often enough to see whats actually going on.

For example on a dual core Phenom II @ 3.4GHz (CnQ enabled) I ran 2 instances of CPU-Z (one for each core) and at the same time ran a program set to take 10 samples per second, the yellow line is P-state (in percentage) and the blue line is the MHz usage, watching core 0 CPU-Z only detected the CPU speed changing two times when it changed at least 10 times.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9981/cpumhz.png

Thanks for sharing your X6 results! :up:
.

---

It should be easy enough to figure out what's really going on here directly via bench results.

We just need the X6 to run Cinebench limited to 4 threads instead of the default. Since Cinebench scales so preditcably with the total clock available to it, the percentage of score difference should be 4%, the same as the percentage of clock difference between 3 turbo cores + 1 stock core versus 4 turbo cores.

Anyone with an X4 can simulate this with AOD by setting one core down by 2.5 multipliers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

flank3r, i'm sure 4.2 on your mobo is pretty easy. temps are not so much of a problem, thubans are really cool!

---

FYI, for reference.

My X4 at 4.1Ghz gives the following:

POV-RAY 3.7 - 3997.13 PPS (1019.41 PPS CPU time)

Code:

---

x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS
 
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 87.32 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.84 fps, 3900.69 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 87.11 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 88.24 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 26.72 fps, 3971.31 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 26.78 fps, 3970.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 26.75 fps, 3971.90 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 26.73 fps, 3971.53 kb/s
 
 
System Details
--------------
        Name                        AMD Phenom II X4 965
        product                        System Product Name
        Codename                Deneb
        Specification                AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
        Core Stepping                RB-C3
        Technology                45 nm
        Core Speed                4100.0 MHz
 
Northbridge                        AMD 790X rev. 00
Southbridge                        ATI SB750 rev. 00
 
CAS# latency (CL)                8.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD)        8
RAS# Precharge (tRP)                8
Cycle Time (tRAS)                20
Command Rate (CR)                1T
Memory Frequency                800.0 MHz (1:4)
Memory Type                        DDR3
Memory Size                        4096 MBytes
Channels                        Dual, (Unganged)
 
Windows Version                        Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Enterprise Edition  (Build 7600)
 
Number of processors                1
Number of threads                4
        Number of threads        4 (max 4)
        L2 cache                4 x 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
        Instructions sets        MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64
        Package                Socket AM2+ (940)
        Package Type                0x1
 
        Temperature 0        39°C (102°F) [0x27] (TMPIN0)
        Temperature 1        24°C (75°F) [0x18] (TMPIN1)
        Temperature 0        47°C (117°F) [0x17B] (Core #0)
        Temperature 1        48°C (117°F) [0x17C] (Core #1)
        Temperature 2        48°C (117°F) [0x17D] (Core #2)
        Temperature 3        48°C (118°F) [0x17F] (Core #3)

---

The fact that our first pass results of x264 makes me wonder if it's being limited to 4 threads? Your X6 running 4 threads at 3x4372 + 1x 3710 would only have 2% more total clock than 4x4100, but it looks like your second pass it much faster, and at 35fps is exactly what one would expect from the 6x3710.

Strange.

i think i messed up (ran with errors on the second pass) with the ram settings when i did the pov-ray bench, so here's another result at 270HTT, 3.8 all cores, 4.4 turbo

Code:

---

x264 HD BENCHMARK 3.0 RESULTS
 
Please do not compare it with older versions of the benchmark!
Please copy/paste everything below the line to to report your data
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 88.97 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.57 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.57 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 89.39 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 35.91 fps, 3968.57 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.00 fps, 3971.60 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 35.84 fps, 3960.24 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 35.87 fps, 3954.02 kb/s
 
 
System Details
--------------
        Name                        AMD K10
        Codename               
        Specification                AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor
        Specification                PC3-12800
        Specification                PC3-12800
        Core Stepping               
        Stock frequency                3300 MHz
        Core Speed                4455.2 MHz
        FID range                5.0x - 16.5x
 
Northbridge                        AMD 790FX rev. 00
Southbridge                        ATI SB750 rev. 00
 
CAS# latency (CL)                7.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD)        7
RAS# Precharge (tRP)                7
Cycle Time (tRAS)                24
Command Rate (CR)                1T
        Command Rate                2T
        Command Rate                2T
Memory Frequency                720.0 MHz (3:8)
Memory Type                        DDR3
Memory Size                        4096 MBytes
Channels                        Dual, (Unganged)
 
Windows Version                        Microsoft Windows 7 (6.1) Ultimate Edition  (Build 7600)
 
Number of processors                1
Number of threads                6
        Number of threads        6 (max 6)
        L2 cache                6 x 512 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
        Instructions sets        MMX (+), 3DNow! (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64
        Package                Socket AM2+ (940)
        Package Type                0x1
 
        Temperature 0        29°C (84°F) [0x1D] (TMPIN0)
        Temperature 1        50°C (121°F) [0x32] (TMPIN1)
        Temperature 2        42°C (107°F) [0x2A] (TMPIN2)
        Temperature 0        27°C (80°F) [0xD7] (Core #0)
        Temperature 1        27°C (81°F) [0xDA] (Core #1)
        Temperature 2        28°C (81°F) [0xDD] (Core #2)
        Temperature 3        28°C (81°F) [0xDE] (Core #3)
        Temperature 4        28°C (82°F) [0xE1] (Core #4)
        Temperature 5        29°C (83°F) [0xE4] (Core #5)

---

here's another one for pov-ray

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/854/povray04.jpg


downloaded spec_3dsmax and spec_viewperf and not sure to run this thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

What volts for that 3.99GHz run Ridney?
I don't believe CPU-Z reading :p:

I must have .... now :scope:

---

1.525v at bios, i think 1.475v is okay for 4.0Ghz but i was just making sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMD-C

FYI, for reference.

The fact that our first pass results of x264 makes me wonder if it's being limited to 4 threads? Your X6 running 4 threads at 3x4372 + 1x 3710 would only have 2% more total clock than 4x4100, but it looks like your second pass it much faster, and at 35fps is exactly what one would expect from the 6x3710.

Strange.

---

I guess first pass runs on turbo and second pass runs on all cores, that should explain the similarity on the first pass scores with your quad.

i think black editions will be money with these cpus because as long as turbo can stay on with changed multi, we should be able to get some nice x6 clocks and still use the 400mhz turbo. when the htt starts getting that high and turbo gets to 600+mhz i think it is easier for the system to become unstable. something like 4.0 with 4.4 turbo, around 1.5v like c3 denebs need :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

i think black editions will be money with these cpus because as long as turbo can stay on with changed multi, we should be able to get some nice x6 clocks and still use the 400mhz turbo. when the htt starts getting that high and turbo gets to 600+mhz i think it is easier for the system to become unstable. something like 4.0 with 4.4 turbo, around 1.5v like c3 denebs need :shrug:

---

Yes.

Ideally I'd like to see BEs sport a configurable Turbo multiplier. That would be a truly killer feature.

I'm tempted to pre-order a 1090T right now, but I think I'm going to wait and see if they will pop up at Microcenter on release day. If so, I'll just pick one up.

I'm officially excited but beginning to wonder of six cores are enough for me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oj101

I'm officially excited but beginning to wonder of six cores are enough for me :D

---

Good thinking on your part :up:

Sorry, typo:

I'm officially excited but beginning to wonder if six cores are enough for me ;)

nothing is enough, we always want moar

i accidentally updated my mobo with an earlier bios (a7577ams.190 dated around feb 2010) and was quite surprised that it still POSTed. Got into bios and checked, processor was unknown but the interesting part was that the cpu multi was up to x16.5 instead of x14. Exciting! So i tried the highest multi (x16.5) and booted to windows only to find out that it was stuck at x4 (800mhz) :P: No matter what i did, it was always running at x4 grrr i thought i outsmarted the cpu and turned off turbo :shakes:

anyways, here are some more bench results

winrar

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8251/winrarj.jpg


7-zip

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/240/7zipo.jpg


if you guys find something about turning turbo off, i appreciate if you can post some info here :up:

i can only push the fsb to 250, no matter what i do :(. i think its the bios, if i overclock the cpu to 3.5 ghz, the bios detected it as 4ghz, but when im in windows, it reads correctly.

@3.5ghz
http://i42.tinypic.com/r1zldt.jpg

what version winrar? 3.9 is the best for benchmark

version 3.93 64bit. or should i use the 32bit version?

u can try it...but for good score, u must all windows down, only winrar on top

has posted this at the chess bench thread, it might be of interest to some.

here's another result for a Phenom II X6 1055T. As of the moment, I can't clock any higher with the turbo on and so far i have no option to disable it so this is just for now.

Code:

---

FEN: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq e3 0 1

Cyclone xTreme II:
  1/1        00:00                  2        0        +0.08        Nb1a3
  1/1        00:00                  3        0        +0.51        Nb1c3
  2/2        00:00                  43        0        +0.20        Nb1c3 Nb8c6
  3/3        00:00                128        0        +0.51        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3
  4/4        00:00                238        0        +0.20        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6
  5/6        00:00              1.075        0        +0.09        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4
  6/11        00:00              2.204        0        +0.20        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4 d7d5
  7/11        00:00              4.071        0        +0.12        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4 d7d5 Bc1f4
  8/11        00:00              7.268        0        +0.20        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4 d7d5 Bc1f4 Bc8f5
  9/17        00:00              18.814        0        +0.17        Nb1c3 Nb8c6 e2e4 Ng8f6 Ng1f3 d7d5 e4e5 Nf6e4 Nc3xe4 d5xe4
 10/21        00:00              53.471        0        +0.20        Nb1c3 Ng8f6 Ng1f3 d7d5 d2d4 Nb8c6 Bc1f4 Bc8f5 e2e3 e7e6
 11/21        00:00              91.145        0        +0.22        Nb1c3 Ng8f6 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 d2d4 d7d5 Qd1d3 Bc8d7 a2a3 Bd7g4 Bc1f4
 12/23        00:00            167.684        0        +0.18        Nb1c3 Ng8f6 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 d2d4 e7e6 d4d5 e6xd5 Nc3xd5 Nc6b4 Nd5c3 d7d5 Bc1f4
 13/29        00:00            306.127        0        +0.16        Nb1c3 Ng8f6 e2e4 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 d7d5 e4xd5 Nf6xd5 Bf1c4 Bc8e6 Bc4xd5 Be6xd5 OO Qd8d6 Nc3xd5 Qd6xd5
 13/30        00:00            964.144        0        +0.20        e2e4 e7e5 Nb1c3 Ng8f6 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 Bf1c4 Bf8b4 OO OO d2d3 d7d6 Bc1e3 Bb4xc3 b2xc3
 14/35        00:01          1.800.342        7.159.763        +0.37        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4 Nf6xe4 Qd1e2 d7d5 Nf3xe5 Nb8d7 Ne5xd7 Ke8xd7 Nb1d2 Qd8e7 Nd2xe4 Qe7xe4 Qe2xe4 d5xe4 Bf1b5+ c7c6
 15/35        00:02          2.448.938        7.130.178        +0.18        e2e4 e7e5 Bf1c4 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 OO Bf8c5 Nb1c3 OO d2d3 d7d6 Bc1e3 Bc5xe3 f2xe3 Bc8e6 Bc4xe6 f7xe6
 16/39        00:03          4.248.704        7.120.316        +0.10        e2e4 e7e5 Bf1c4 Nb8c6 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 OO Bf8c5 Nb1c3 OO d2d3 d7d6 Bc1e3 Bc5xe3 f2xe3 Bc8g4 Qd1e2
 16/39        00:06          7.790.094        7.061.144        +0.16        Ng1f3 d7d5 d2d4 Ng8f6 e2e3 Nb8c6 Nb1c3 e7e6 Bf1d3 Bf8d6 OO OO Bc1d2 Nc6b4 Bd3b5 Bc8d7
 17/39        00:12          14.370.622        7.080.868        +0.10        Ng1f3 Ng8f6 d2d4 e7e6 Nb1c3 Nb8c6 e2e4 Bf8b4 Bf1d3 d7d5 e4xd5 e6xd5 OO OO Bc1g5 Bb4xc3 b2xc3 Rf8e8 Rf1e1
 17/39        00:18          21.796.565        7.041.420        +0.38        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 Nf3xe5 Qd8e7 Ne5f3 Nf6xe4 Bf1e2 d7d5 d2d3 Ne4f6 OO Nb8c6 Nb1c3 Bc8e6 d3d4 OOO Bc1f4
 18/41        00:21          25.904.523        7.083.686        +0.26        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 Nf3xe5 Qd8e7 Ne5f3 Qe7xe4+ Bf1e2 Nb8c6 Nb1c3 Qe4e6 OO Bf8b4 Nc3b5 Ke8d8 Rf1e1 Rh8e8 c2c3 Bb4c5
 19/43        00:34          41.464.790        7.171.946        +0.32        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Ng8f6 Nf3xe5 d7d6 Ne5f3 Nf6xe4 Nb1c3 Ne4xc3 d2xc3 Nb8c6 Bf1d3 Bf8e7 OO OO Bc1f4 Bc8e6 Rf1e1 Rf8e8 Qd1d2 Qd8d7
 20/44        01:03          76.961.527        7.230.708        +0.25        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 Bf1b5 a7a6 Bb5xc6 d7xc6 OO Bc8g4 h2h3 Bg4xf3 Qd1xf3 Ng8f6 Qf3b3 Ra8b8 Nb1c3 Bf8c5 d2d3 OO Bc1e3 Qd8d6
 21/44        01:34        114.592.614        7.242.048        +0.25        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 Bf1b5 a7a6 Bb5xc6 d7xc6 OO Bc8g4 h2h3 Bg4xf3 Qd1xf3 Ng8f6 Nb1c3 Qd8d6 d2d3 Bf8e7 Bc1g5 OO Bg5xf6 Be7xf6 Qf3e3 h7h5
 22/49        02:42        195.903.930        7.256.222        +0.23        e2e4 e7e5 Ng1f3 Nb8c6 Bf1b5 a7a6 Bb5xc6 d7xc6 OO Bc8g4 h2h3 Bg4xf3 Qd1xf3 Ng8f6 d2d3 Bf8c5 Nb1d2 OO Nd2c4 Nf6d7 Bc1e3 Bc5xe3 Qf3xe3 b7b5 Nc4d2

---

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8932/chessi.jpg

are you volts really 1.46? what happens when turbo kicks in, does it jump to 1.5+ or stays at 1.46?

yep, the voltage you set in bios is for all cores at load. mine's 1.475v in bios and 1.468v~ on load shown in cpuz. when turbo it's about +0.1v (1.575v) cpu calculates desired voltage depending on clock speed, maybe

o sweet, turbo actually modifies what you set, relative to what you set.
im struggling to give myself any reason not to get one of these right when they come out, even though i wouldnt use it for anything other than its turbo feature for WoW (250$ is alot for 20% better fps, lol)

It'll be an upgrade for me, considering I've got an E6600 from release day back in August of 2006. I'm switching to AMD for nothing other than they're cheaper than Intel.

Any idea on 890FX motherboard prices?

890FX would be much lesser than intel boards. top end would be around $200 range

ASUS CrossHair iV is going for £160-190. But you don't need FX for overclocking, Thuban plays nice on 760G boards and upwards. Should have one soon.

windows experience anyone? :D

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/40/...experience.jpg

@Ridney
nice results you got there..is it a retail chip??is 4ghz doable on air??i see you're using heaps of voltage there..

we have the same cpu score ridney :).
what harddrive are u using, my wdc only got 5.4 :(.
http://i41.tinypic.com/i730jq.jpg

pretty cool score!

With my i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz, 6Gb DDR3 Dominators at 1603Mhz 8-8-8-24 1T and my GTX 295 687Mhz Core

so, for comparison i get:

CPU: 7.6
MEM: 7.9
Graphics: 7.7
Gaming Graphics: 7.7


and in Cinebench i get 6.51 CPU & 45.30 GPU score.


So, really cool indeed. Are your cpu's overclocked, or are those default speed scores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -=[kz-0]=-

@Ridney
nice results you got there..is it a retail chip??is 4ghz doable on air??i see you're using heaps of voltage there..

---

yes, it's a retail chip and 4ghz stable is possible. voltage is dynamic which depending on clocks, would clockdown before it undervolts so on that ss it just clocked down from 3.7ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy_satriani

we have the same cpu score ridney :).
what harddrive are u using, my wdc only got 5.4 :(.

---

cool score! i wonder if we can still improve on the cpu score :) i'm running a wdc 640gb blue two in raid 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Postmodum

pretty cool score!

With my i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz, 6Gb DDR3 Dominators at 1603Mhz 8-8-8-24 1T and my GTX 295 687Mhz Core

so, for comparison i get:

CPU: 7.6
MEM: 7.9
Graphics: 7.7
Gaming Graphics: 7.7


and in Cinebench i get 6.51 CPU & 45.30 GPU score.


So, really cool indeed. Are your cpu's overclocked, or are those default speed scores?

---

Almost identical score with the i7 920 :up: My cinebench score is 6.8 CPU at 3.8ghz IIRC

Yes, it is oc'd to 3.7ghz and 4.37ghz turbo

Finally AMD can go head to head with i7's! :) cool! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

yes, it's a retail chip and 4ghz stable is possible.

---

Can you get a 20+ LinX screenshot please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

Can you get a 20+ LinX screenshot please?

---

i don't run linx and prime because i hate stressing my system, but i feel and strongly believe you can hit 4ghz prime/linx stable "easily" on thubans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ridney

i feel and strongly believe you can hit 4ghz prime/linx stable "easily" on thubans.

---

20 passes on LinX using 8GB of memory is no problem at 4HGz. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praz

20 passes on LinX using 8GB of memory is no problem at 4HGz. :)

---

And the screenshot that proves it is where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by initialised

And the screenshot that proves it is where?

---

On my hard drive till the NDA is lifted.

So whats max stable clock on air Praz ? You already told 4ghz is "no problem" so maybe even higher :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polizei

...switching to AMD for nothing other than they're cheaper than Intel.

---

I think a lot of people will jump ship for the 6 core AMD chips.

The pricing is very reasonable - AMD really stand to gain some market share in desktop CPU's.

This is the most interesting thread I have read in a long time - thanks for sharing your hard work ridney :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaV[666]

So whats max stable clock on air Praz ? You already told 4ghz is "no problem" so maybe even higher :)

---

so 4ghz is still not enough for you? i think you need to get an x6 and see for yourself :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinobino

I think a lot of people will jump ship for the 6 core AMD chips.

The pricing is very reasonable - AMD really stand to gain some market share in desktop CPU's.

This is the most interesting thread I have read in a long time - thanks for sharing your hard work ridney :up:

---

hey i'm glad it was interesting :)